Philosophy Question
Snit
supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
the different views.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Ezekiel
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
> and
> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
> to
> the different views.
-- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
Science - No.
Junk science - Yes.
Snit
3:28 PM:
And how do you, personally, decide what is science and what is junk science?
Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
measurements. Also it should be repeatable.
Junk science seems to me, anyway, to be based out of social engineering
designed to trigger emotional responses that aren't based in hard
science. I suppose it could be better defined that what I have wrote.
The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
is supposed to make it easier to remember and use.
philo
> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
> the different views.
>
>
There is some evidence to support global warming...
but looking at temperature change, historically...
one really needs to have data spanning several hundred years to be able
to draw any real conclusion.
OTOH: I say , why not err on the side of caution?
That said...those who cite evidence of global warming need to be a bit
more careful on the "facts" they present. One point I've noticed are
those photos of polar bears "stranded" on ice floes. A dramatic picture
until one comes to the realization that polar bears can easily swim 50
miles or more...swimming a few hundred yards to the next floe is hardly
a big deal
Chris Ahlstrom
As RonB shows, it can be difficult to distinguish the two for "outsiders".
--
Gone With The Wind LITE(tm)
-- by Margaret Mitchell
A woman only likes men she can't have and the South gets trashed.
Gift of the Magi LITE(tm)
-- by O. Henry
A husband and wife forget to register their gift preferences.
The Old Man and the Sea LITE(tm)
-- by Ernest Hemingway
An old man goes fishing, but doesn't have much luck.
Snit
2/10/10 4:18 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Ezekiel stated in post hkvbtu$vm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10
>> 3:28 PM:
>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>
>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
>>>> to
>>>> the different views.
>>>
>>> -- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
>>>
>>> Science - No.
>>> Junk science - Yes.
>>
>> And how do you, personally, decide what is science and what is junk science?
>> Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
>>
>>
> Science is supposed to embrace provable claims from observations and
> measurements. Also it should be repeatable.
Correct. And, when appropriate multiple avenues should lead to similar
conclusions.
> Junk science seems to me, anyway, to be based out of social engineering
> designed to trigger emotional responses that aren't based in hard
> science. I suppose it could be better defined that what I have wrote.
But I think I get it: it has an end-goal in mind other than finding a better
model / modifying a clearly related existing situation.
> The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
> form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
> is supposed to make it easier to remember and use.
There is a lot of science to UI design... which is not to say there is not
also art. This is true of many things, even architecture: a good building
is designed based on many scientific principles, but also could be very much
a piece of art. Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow
the science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it
cools?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
>> the different views.
>>
>>
>
>
> There is some evidence to support global warming... but looking at temperature
> change, historically... one really needs to have data spanning several hundred
> years to be able to draw any real conclusion.
We have non-direct evidence that goes back very far.
> OTOH: I say , why not err on the side of caution?
The general argument against limiting pollutants is that those who claim to
know what is happening are wrong - we do not really know. Well, sure, that
means we should be *more* cautious, not less.
> That said...those who cite evidence of global warming need to be a bit more
> careful on the "facts" they present. One point I've noticed are those photos
> of polar bears "stranded" on ice floes. A dramatic picture until one comes to
> the realization that polar bears can easily swim 50 miles or more...swimming a
> few hundred yards to the next floe is hardly a big deal
There is a lot of sensationalism... and, in the long run, that works against
the science.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/10/10 4:28 PM:
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>
>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
>>> and supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc.
>>> Curious as to the different views.
>>
>> -- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
>>
>> Science - No.
>> Junk science - Yes.
>
> As RonB shows, it can be difficult to distinguish the two for "outsiders".
Agreed. So how do you base your views?
Seems science is not well trusted in COLA, at least by the "advocates".
Maybe some science is and some science is not. I am curious where and why.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> That said...those who cite evidence of global warming need to be a bit
> more careful on the "facts" they present. One point I've noticed are
> those photos of polar bears "stranded" on ice floes. A dramatic picture
> until one comes to the realization that polar bears can easily swim 50
> miles or more...swimming a few hundred yards to the next floe is hardly
> a big deal
And sea ice melts every year and refreezes in the winter. I particularly
liked the one where the polar bears and penguins were in the same video --
until someone remembered that they come from different ends of the earth
and photo-shopped out the penguin.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
RonB
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>
>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has
>>> found and supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science,
>>> etc. Curious as to the different views.
>>
>> -- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
>>
>> Science - No.
>> Junk science - Yes.
>
> As RonB shows, it can be difficult to distinguish the two for
> "outsiders".
Yeah, "real" science, resorts to character assassination, and cooking the
books and hiding data from the public that pays for it. "Junk science"
resorts to pointing out that facts don't fit the models.
Man-made "global warming" is pure bullshit.
Snit
PM:
I have no doubt you can point to some wrong doing in the thousands upon
thousands of scientists who have backed the idea of man made global warming.
But can you show all of them, and all the lay people who gather data, are
all into this same "cooking" of the books?
And how about UI science? Why all the "cooking" there? Do you trust
evidence anywhere? Do you think man made it to the moon? Do you think the
Earth is flat?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
Just because some people are using the "theory" for political purposes
doesn't mean there isn't some solid science behind the more rational claims.
CO2 is a green-house gas. We are adding significantly to the levels of it.
That is not bullshit.
--
Thank you for smoking.
Snit
2/10/10 6:10 PM:
So you accept the science here, but not when it comes to UI science. Why is
that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> Just because some people are using the "theory" for political purposes
> doesn't mean there isn't some solid science behind the more rational
> claims.
Which is... what exactly? The earth was warming, when we had high sunspot
activity, it's now cooling (except when "scientists" "cook the books").
This is a political agenda and "science" (so-called) has been enlisted to
prop it up.
> CO2 is a green-house gas. We are adding significantly to the levels of
> it. That is not bullshit.
What's bullshit is the minute (by percentage) amount of C02 we emit
somehow overrides the over 97% produced naturally. And the amount we can
stop emitting -- since we do have to breathe and heat our homes and get
from place to place -- is even smaller.
And, no, the amount of C02 humans emit is not significant -- not on a
world-wide basis.
Snit
PM:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:10:30 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Just because some people are using the "theory" for political purposes
>> doesn't mean there isn't some solid science behind the more rational
>> claims.
>
> Which is... what exactly? The earth was warming, when we had high sunspot
> activity, it's now cooling (except when "scientists" "cook the books").
Where did you come up with that?
<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
-----
Today, most climatologists agree that the theory of
anthropogenic global warming has survived challenges and
testing against data from many sources. Anthropogenic global
warming is a better "fit" to what is being observed in all
the data than answers such as warming from the sun, or
normal, periodic warming the Earth has experienced before.
Those theories don't fit the data as well as does
anthropogenic global warming.
-----
Notice how your comments are contrary to the data that has been presented.
Do you have anything to back up your views?
> This is a political agenda and "science" (so-called) has been enlisted to
> prop it up.
So you say. With no evidence.
>> CO2 is a green-house gas. We are adding significantly to the levels of
>> it. That is not bullshit.
>
> What's bullshit is the minute (by percentage) amount of C02 we emit
> somehow overrides the over 97% produced naturally. And the amount we can
> stop emitting -- since we do have to breathe and heat our homes and get
> from place to place -- is even smaller.
>
> And, no, the amount of C02 humans emit is not significant -- not on a
> world-wide basis.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
-----
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36%
and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much
higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the
period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2
values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years
ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of
the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20
years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change,
particularly deforestation.
-----
Again, your comments do not fit the known data... and you have no contrary
data.
In other words: you have no support.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Enkidu
> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
> the different views.
It never makes sense to westle with reality.
--
Enkidu
Enkidu
> The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
> form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
> is supposed to make it easier to remember and use.
No way is UI design a science, though various designs could be compared
statistically, measuring perceived ease of use or timing tasks.
--
Enkidu
Enkidu
> Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow
> the science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it
> cools?
The glass blower doesn't do science. He doesn't do a series of
repeatable experiments, changing just one aspect, and measure the
results. The glass *artist* learns from another artist.
I'm not knocking art . . . all that isn't science isn't bad, it just
isn't science.
(I've spent many an hour watching the glass artists in Balboa Park with
my kids.)
--
Enkidu
Enkidu
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>
>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
>>> and supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc.
>>> Curious as to the different views.
>>
>> -- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
>>
>> Science - No.
>> Junk science - Yes.
>
> As RonB shows, it can be difficult to distinguish the two for "outsiders".
For starters, any science should have a theory. Ask your acupuncturist
why the needles need to be placed where he places them, and he won't be
able to give you a coherent answer.
--
Enkidu
Chris Ahlstrom
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
From these data, the 270 Gtons of human carbon emissions over the past
200 years would have increased carbon dioxide concentration from 280 to
415 ppm, if it had all stayed there. Since present carbon dioxide
concentration is about 360 ppm, 41% of the cumulative emissions have been
absorbed by the environment; assuming, of course, that the carbon source
is entirely human. This differs from the present estimate of 50%, due to
lower absorption rates during the first three quarters of the last two
centuries.
If you look around, people toss of ratios like 1% of CO2 being due to man.
Well, let's say it were compounded at that rate over 200 years. By what
factor would CO2 have increased? 1.01 to the 200th power, or 7.3 !!!
Obviously, that's too high, as the concentration has not even doubled.
Some estimates are more like 0.1%. Over 200 years, that's a factor
of 1.22, much more reasonable. Still a very rudimentary estimate.
But all I'm doing here is noting that small percentages make a BIG
difference in the effects, so it is not as insignificant as one would prefer
to think. It definitely bears watching.
--
Q: How many IBM 370's does it take to execute a job?
A: Four, three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.
Snit
7:34 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow
>> the science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it
>> cools?
>
> The glass blower doesn't do science. He doesn't do a series of
> repeatable experiments, changing just one aspect, and measure the
> results. The glass *artist* learns from another artist.
What makes you think they do not alter variables and do repeatable
experiments? But even if one does not, they have learned from others who
have. And if they do not know the repeatable science, how do they know what
to add to the glass to get repeatable colors, for example?
Granted, some glass blowers might not understand the science they are
following, but there has been a *lot* of repeatable experimentation where
single variables have been altered to get glass blowing to where it now is.
> I'm not knocking art . . . all that isn't science isn't bad, it just
> isn't science.
>
> (I've spent many an hour watching the glass artists in Balboa Park with
> my kids.)
There is a lot of art to it as well... I am not knocking the artistic side
of it at all.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:36 PM:
Many scientific instruments and tools are made with no theory other than
noting what works... think of the MMPI, for example. There is nothing in
science that goes against empirical item keying. There are also theories as
to why and where to place needles with acupuncture... the one I lean toward
is the competing stimulus theory, but I admit I know only a little about
acupuncture.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:24 PM:
There can be times, though, when science is not the best tool for the job.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
What you're showing is that you completely misunderstand how the system
works. Man-made C02 doesn't sit in the air and "collect" as some separate
"entity" as opposed to non man-emitted C02. It's all the same thing and in
the same huge pool. The more C02 in the air, the more plants grow and the
more C02 they absorb and the more oxygen they emit. C02 is beneficial to
the planet.
More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
Snit
PM:
Some is. Messing with the balance is not.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
-----
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36%
and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much
higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the
period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2
values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years
ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of
the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20
years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change,
particularly deforestation.
-----
> More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
> in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
> driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
> warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
Where do you get this idea from? Are you just making things up?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> ronb stated in post hl056s$gji$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10 10:39
> PM:
>> More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
>> in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
>> driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
>> warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
>
> Where do you get this idea from? Are you just making things up?
No, he isn't making things up. It's a solid theory. I'll try dig up
some links later on (or you can try find more info yourself of
course).
--
The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents,
and the second half by our children.
~ Clarence Darrow
Snit
AM:
> On 2010-02-11, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> ronb stated in post hl056s$gji$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10 10:39
>> PM:
>>> More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
>>> in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
>>> driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
>>> warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
>>
>> Where do you get this idea from? Are you just making things up?
>
> No, he isn't making things up. It's a solid theory. I'll try dig up
> some links later on (or you can try find more info yourself of
> course).
I suspect you will be able to find some info on the sun's affect on the
temperature... but nothing that says it explains the full changes we are
seeing. Also, you are unlikely to find anything that says the current heat
changes are what have causes the CO2 levels to be higher than they have been
in 20 million years or so (been a while since that was determined, so maybe
20 million and one by now). :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
M0she_
I've stayed out of this Global Warming thingie mostly because I
admit I know very little about it, however consider these points:
1. Climate changes, drastic climate changes, have been a part of
our history. See ice age and even more so little ice age for
examples. Greenhouse gases weren't a big part of any of them
unless you consider cattle farting....
2. People like Al Gore etc are making fortunes off of this crap
yet are the biggest hypocrites in the pile. Wonder if Al runs
Linux?
He would fit right in with his corporate jet, fancy polluting
SUV's and his home use of electric power.
3. Global warming doesn't necessarily mean things get hotter for
everyone. It really should be renamed to something like "climate
alteration etc". The people who are seeing extreme snow in
Maryland USA certainly are having a difficult time thinking global
warming.
4. I have no doubt that our polluting ways, see China for current
details, are wreaking havoc. Looking at satellite photos of the
arctic melting is pretty much proof that things are changing.
However, are they really changing mainly due to man's ignorance or
are these cycles that have been going on for billions of years?
I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
why my answer is I dunno....
Phil Da Lick!
> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
> the different views.
How's about until science has all the answers and can present them in an
unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up thanks.
TomB
What (s)he said!
--
You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary
man could be such a fool.
~ George Orwell
Hadron
Yeah - Science is not defined enough for Freetard Phil to accept. Fear
his mighty RonB like brain .....
Phil Da Lick!
You should do if you seriously think that science has all the answers.
Richard Rasker
Science will never have all the answers, nor will it be able to present any
answers in an unbiased, unpartisan fashion. Scientists are people, after
all.
The best you can hope for, is that science
- provides the best answers possible, based on available scientific
knowledge and sound reasoning;
- is not just willing to adapt or even abandon existing theories if evidence
to the contrary is discovered, but actively searches to disprove its own
claims, and encourages people to do the same;
- isn't afraid to say "We don't know."
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-02-11, the following emerged from the brain of M0she_:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:09:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> TomB stated in post 201002110...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/11/10 1:46
>>>> On 2010-02-11, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> ronb stated in post hl056s$gji$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10 10:39
>>>>>
>>>>>> More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
>>>>>> in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
>>>>>> driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
>>>>>> warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get this idea from? Are you just making things up?
>>>>
>>>> No, he isn't making things up. It's a solid theory. I'll try dig up
>>>> some links later on (or you can try find more info yourself of
>>>> course).
>>>
>>> I suspect you will be able to find some info on the sun's affect on the
>>> temperature... but nothing that says it explains the full changes we are
>>> seeing. Also, you are unlikely to find anything that says the current heat
>>> changes are what have causes the CO2 levels to be higher than they have been
>>> in 20 million years or so (been a while since that was determined, so maybe
>>> 20 million and one by now). :)
>>
>> I've stayed out of this Global Warming thingie mostly because I
>> admit I know very little about it, however consider these points:
>>
>> 1. Climate changes, drastic climate changes, have been a part of
>> our history. See ice age and even more so little ice age for
>> examples. Greenhouse gases weren't a big part of any of them
>> unless you consider cattle farting....
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>> why my answer is I dunno....
>
> What (s)he said!
Including the anti-Linux part?
Anyway, there are obviously a lot of factors in global temperature.
Including solar spots. But has it been shown that the correlation between
spots and CO2 is causation?
But my little analysis actually scared the crap out me when I thought about
it some more... that such a small change in CO2 could have very significant
effects.
Anyway:
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/sunspots-co2-and-their-correlation-climate-change
The climate has been and still is a complex system with multiple input
variables and output effects; the interplay responds to forces from the
sun, the oceans, the environment, and yes, human interactions with it.
The idea that the sun is the sole determining factor of climate change on
Earth is as preposterous as the claim that CO2 is the driving factor.
Both contribute to the dynamic process.
The problem with advocates for the sunspot hypothesis is that the idea
lends itself to a passive approach to dealing with the effects of climate
change. BBC stated in a piece called Sunspots reaching 1000-year high
that "this latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable
indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth
to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt
to warm the Earth".
Calling this rational though process bullshit is... bullshit. Our
contribution of all sorts of gases is significant.
Now let's kill off a few more forests so that CO2 can continue to rise and
regenerate our beloved Jurassic forests.
--
If you think last Tuesday was a drag, wait till you see what happens tomorrow!
Chris Ahlstrom
<snipped>
This article and comments brought up some points I had not seen before:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
However, note that this article uses a rather long time scale.
--
Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel stated in post hkvbtu$vm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10
> 3:28 PM:
>
>>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>
>>> and
>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious
>>> as to
>>> the different views.
>>
>>
>>
>> Science - No.
>> Junk science - Yes.
>
> science?
> Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
Nearly all people don't have enough expertise on these subjects to decide on
their own what is junk, and what isn't. Reading a few articles on the web
somewhere doesn't qualify anyone as an expert no matter how much they would
like to think it does.
So I basically rely on other scientists - that's why they have peer review.
If something is real science then you'll find the overwhelming majority of
the scientific community backing and supporting it. But if someone's
"discovery" (Cold-Fusion in the late 90's) is met with a high degree of
skepticism then I'll also be a skeptic. Their "science" hasn't passed muster
with their own peers and colleagues.
Phil Da Lick!
Precisely my point. A bit of interpretation and "making your own mind
up" is required.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Nearly all people don't have enough expertise on these subjects to decide on
> their own what is junk, and what isn't. Reading a few articles on the web
> somewhere doesn't qualify anyone as an expert no matter how much they would
> like to think it does.
>
> So I basically rely on other scientists - that's why they have peer review.
> If something is real science then you'll find the overwhelming majority of
> the scientific community backing and supporting it. But if someone's
> "discovery" (Cold-Fusion in the late 90's) is met with a high degree of
> skepticism then I'll also be a skeptic. Their "science" hasn't passed muster
> with their own peers and colleagues.
This is a sensible view.
The problem seems to be, though, that "global warming" has become a
political football for many camps, regardless of what reasonable
conclusions one could reach, with science, concerning the effect of man's
output of various gases over the last 200 years and into the next 200.
--
Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with an attorney?
A: An offer you can't understand.
Snit
2:19 AM:
I do not think this is in contention.
> 2. People like Al Gore etc are making fortunes off of this crap
> yet are the biggest hypocrites in the pile. Wonder if Al runs
> Linux?
> He would fit right in with his corporate jet, fancy polluting
> SUV's and his home use of electric power.
I believe he also does plenty of carbon offsetting, which is not to say I
agree with his choices... or know them.
> 3. Global warming doesn't necessarily mean things get hotter for
> everyone. It really should be renamed to something like "climate
> alteration etc". The people who are seeing extreme snow in
> Maryland USA certainly are having a difficult time thinking global
> warming.
It is really generally referred to by scientists as climate change, not
global warming. The models support the idea of some areas getting cooler.
With that said, one cold winter in one area, or even several areas, does not
go against the theory (theories).
> 4. I have no doubt that our polluting ways, see China for current
> details, are wreaking havoc. Looking at satellite photos of the
> arctic melting is pretty much proof that things are changing.
> However, are they really changing mainly due to man's ignorance or
> are these cycles that have been going on for billions of years?
While there are changes from natural cycles, it is pretty clear the current
changes are happening largely from man-made activity. This is not really in
question by anyone who knows the data well.
> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
> why my answer is I dunno....
Well, nobody has done a double-blind study to test the last one... we have
only one planet and doing random studies with it is a bit of a challenge.
:) But it is about as clear as it can be that the changes are largely not
natural.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Iaydney7lJi_U-7W...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 2:30 AM:
Science is not about providing all the answers... it is about building
models and testing them, looking at data, etc.
But, sure, you should make up your own mind. If not based on the science /
best known data, though, what do you base it on?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Who has said science has all the answers? What a bizarre straw man... one
that shows your ignorance of science.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4b73e96e$0$732$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net on 2/11/10 4:26 AM:
Well stated.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:00 AM:
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C7988476.63FDC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> Ezekiel stated in post hkvbtu$vm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10
>> 3:28 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>
>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
>>>> and
>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious
>>>> as to
>>>> the different views.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- "(does) it makes sense to go against what science has found"
>>>
>>> Science - No.
>>> Junk science - Yes.
>>
>> And how do you, personally, decide what is science and what is junk
>> science?
>> Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
>
> Nearly all people don't have enough expertise on these subjects to decide on
> their own what is junk, and what isn't. Reading a few articles on the web
> somewhere doesn't qualify anyone as an expert no matter how much they would
> like to think it does.
Correct. For example, I am far more knowledgeable on UI science than I am
on global climate change.
> So I basically rely on other scientists - that's why they have peer review.
> If something is real science then you'll find the overwhelming majority of
> the scientific community backing and supporting it. But if someone's
> "discovery" (Cold-Fusion in the late 90's) is met with a high degree of
> skepticism then I'll also be a skeptic. Their "science" hasn't passed muster
> with their own peers and colleagues.
Makes sense.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Sure: if you have direct evidence of ghosts then believe in them, even if
science has not proved them. But hard to have direct evidence of global
climate change not happening... or UI science not being accurate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Phil Da Lick!
Has it disproved them yet? It's this kind of wobbly thinking that is
precisely the problem with science. You interpret the data one way and
therefore it "must be true".
> But hard to have direct evidence of global
> climate change not happening... or UI science not being accurate.
Take climate change - about the only thing that can be universally
accepted is that it is happening. It has not been 100% proven yet that
it is industrialisation, the population rise, or just a natural cycle of
the earth. Sure, we all have our opinions but opinions are not proof.
Phil Da Lick!
Can you read?
Me:
>>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them
in an
>>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up
>>>> thanks.
Hardon:
>>> Yeah - Science is not defined enough for Freetard Phil to accept.
One does not follow the other.
Phil Da Lick!
Who said anything about not basing your own conclusions on the available
science? There's a world of difference between that and blindly
believing that science is universally watertight.
Phil Da Lick!
That is generally the case but you do have instances where new
discoveries alter previously held majority views - sometimes in a
complete reversal.
Phil Da Lick!
There's also a massive economic/financial interest building up behind it
as well.
Ezekiel
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:NaOdnTlAMt1RuOnW...@brightview.co.uk...
The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
I don't think that science or one's beliefs need to be "static." What I
mean by this is that I don't necessarily question all science because of the
possibility that one day it might be proven wrong. As long as the 'science'
we have today is based on the best knowledge and evidence that we have
available then I'm comfortable with accepting it as being true. I'm also
willing to acknowledge that we don't know all the answers and that what
currently passes for science may be proven wrong someday.
Chris Ahlstrom
Let me know when it builds up enough to match the powerful business
interests devoted to denying the need for any kind of conservation effort.
--
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Chris Ahlstrom
Here's an old assessment from one of the conservative icons of science:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html
5. Sceptics are still out there
Despite a near-universal scientific consensus to the contrary, climate
change sceptics continued this year to insist that global warming is a
farce.
Quite properly, the article mentions a number of unsolved issues.
--
You will soon forget this.
Phil Da Lick!
That's a long way off. Those entrenched interests have got way too much
clout.
Phil Da Lick!
Hence, a bit of interpretation leading to a judgement is in order.
Phil Da Lick!
There was a story recently in the UK about a university found forging
its data about climate change. The sceptics were all over it like a
rash, declaring that the whole of climate change is therefore a fraud.
Laughable.
Chris Ahlstrom
> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
By new science.
Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
> I don't think that science or one's beliefs need to be "static." What I
> mean by this is that I don't necessarily question all science because of the
> possibility that one day it might be proven wrong. As long as the 'science'
> we have today is based on the best knowledge and evidence that we have
> available then I'm comfortable with accepting it as being true. I'm also
> willing to acknowledge that we don't know all the answers and that what
> currently passes for science may be proven wrong someday.
Unfortunately, many people do not have your understanding of the word
"theory".
--
Delores breezed along the surface of her life like a flat stone forever
skipping along smooth water, rippling reality sporadically but oblivious
to it consistently, until she finally lost momentum, sank, and due to an
overdose of flouride as a child which caused her to suffer from chronic
apathy, doomed herself to lie forever on the floor of her life as useless
as an appendix and as lonely as a five-hundred pound barbell in a
steroid-free fitness center.
-- Winning sentence, 1990 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.
Phil Da Lick!
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>
> By new science.
>
> Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
The other classic example is when cigarettes were found in fact to be
harmful. Even though most scientists knew within a short space of time,
it took a long time for that to become publicly accepted due to obvious
entrenched business interests. There will always be partisan people who
won't accept new science due to monetary/religious/dumbfuckery issues.
cc
> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as to
> the different views.
>
UI is hardly a science yet. There are no hard and fast rules yet. And
it will never be a science like real science. It will be a science
like marketing is a science (if you want to call it that). Science has
indisputable rules. A good UI is just whatever pleases most of the
people, but not all. You can never get everyone. Right now you can
find conflicting papers regarding pretty much all aspects of UI. You
can throw together studies to prove just about anything for it. Right
now the only thing everyone agrees on is that the UI is important.
Grouping global warming together with "UI science" doesn't make sense.
"UI science" should be grouped with "Superbowl Commercial Science."
Ezekiel
> On 11/02/2010 16:11, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything
>>> revolved
>>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>>
>> By new science.
>>
>> Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
>
> The other classic example is when cigarettes were found in fact to be
> harmful. Even though most scientists knew within a short space of time, it
> took a long time for that to become publicly accepted due to obvious
> entrenched business interests. There will always be partisan people who
> won't accept new science due to monetary/religious/dumbfuckery issues.
In a perfect world it would be nice if scientists were impartial and could
conduct their research and science without any commercial or political
influence. But in many cases science is a business and these labs need
funding in order to continue and that will almost certainly have an
influence on their findings.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!"<phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:E8ydnVBtYfaTsOnW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 11/02/2010 16:11, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything
>>>> revolved
>>>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>>>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>>>
>>> By new science.
>>>
>>> Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
>>
>> The other classic example is when cigarettes were found in fact to be
>> harmful. Even though most scientists knew within a short space of time, it
>> took a long time for that to become publicly accepted due to obvious
>> entrenched business interests. There will always be partisan people who
>> won't accept new science due to monetary/religious/dumbfuckery issues.
>
> In a perfect world it would be nice if scientists were impartial and could
> conduct their research and science without any commercial or political
> influence. But in many cases science is a business and these labs need
> funding in order to continue and that will almost certainly have an
> influence on their findings.
Indeed.
Snit
Science has not disproved ghost, UFOs, gods, etc. Nor can it.
> It's this kind of wobbly thinking that is
> precisely the problem with science. You interpret the data one way and
> therefore it "must be true".
Not sure what you are getting at? You mean your "wobbly thinking" of saying
science has disproved ghosts?
>> But hard to have direct evidence of global climate change not happening... or
>> UI science not being accurate.
>>
> Take climate change - about the only thing that can be universally accepted is
> that it is happening.
Well, I am sure not even that is universally accepted. People believe all
sorts of odd things... without a shred of evidence.
> It has not been 100% proven yet that it is industrialisation, the population
> rise, or just a natural cycle of the earth. Sure, we all have our opinions but
> opinions are not proof.
Has anyone claimed to have proof? There is strong support of the theories
of man-made global warming, but that is not proof. This strong support
comes from multiple avenues and multiple sciences... and has very strong
correlation between fields of study.
The contrary "evidence" is mostly just people saying we do not know what
affect we are having - which means we should be even more cautious, and
nay-sayers who pretty much insist that since they do not see a curve the
Earth must be flat.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 11/02/2010 15:05, Snit wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>> P5-dnf8FVelaSO7W...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 3:02 AM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> "Phil Da Lick!"<phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the different views.
>>>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them in an
>>>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up
>>>>> thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah - Science is not defined enough for Freetard Phil to accept. Fear
>>>> his mighty RonB like brain .....
>>>
>>> You should do if you seriously think that science has all the answers.
>>
>> Who has said science has all the answers? What a bizarre straw man... one
>> that shows your ignorance of science.
>
> Can you read?
Yes. If I could not then this conversation could not be happening, unless
you think I have someone else or my computer reading to me. What an odd
question.
> Me:
>>>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them
> in an
>>>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up
>>>>> thanks.
>
> Hardon:
>>>> Yeah - Science is not defined enough for Freetard Phil to accept.
>
> One does not follow the other.
You require science to "have all the answers" before you will support its
conclusions... but science is not about having "all the answers". You show
you are not one who believes in science. That is fine - the question then
becomes where do you get your views?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 11/02/2010 15:04, Snit wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>> Iaydney7lJi_U-7W...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 2:30 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
>>>> to
>>>> the different views.
>>>
>>>
>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them in an
>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up thanks.
>>
>> Science is not about providing all the answers... it is about building
>> models and testing them, looking at data, etc.
>>
>> But, sure, you should make up your own mind. If not based on the science /
>> best known data, though, what do you base it on?
>
> Who said anything about not basing your own conclusions on the available
> science?
You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It never
will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature of
science.
> There's a world of difference between that and blindly
> believing that science is universally watertight.
This is a much softer view than your previously stated one, but fine, I can
go with your new view (as in accepting it as yours, not saying I fully
agree). Who do you think thinks science is "universally watertight"?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> And how do you, personally, decide what is science and what is junk science?
>>> Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
>>>
>> Nearly all people don't have enough expertise on these subjects to decide on
>> their own what is junk, and what isn't. Reading a few articles on the web
>> somewhere doesn't qualify anyone as an expert no matter how much they would
>> like to think it does.
>>
>> So I basically rely on other scientists - that's why they have peer review.
>> If something is real science then you'll find the overwhelming majority of
>> the scientific community backing and supporting it. But if someone's
>> "discovery" (Cold-Fusion in the late 90's) is met with a high degree of
>> skepticism then I'll also be a skeptic. Their "science" hasn't passed muster
>> with their own peers and colleagues.
>>
> That is generally the case but you do have instances where new discoveries
> alter previously held majority views - sometimes in a complete reversal.
Right: when evidence is shown to not support a theory, then science changes
theories. Often not as quickly as it should, but there is benefit to
caution there, too.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:59 AM:
>> That is generally the case but you do have instances where new discoveries
>> alter previously held majority views - sometimes in a complete reversal.
>
> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>
> I don't think that science or one's beliefs need to be "static." What I
> mean by this is that I don't necessarily question all science because of the
> possibility that one day it might be proven wrong. As long as the 'science'
> we have today is based on the best knowledge and evidence that we have
> available then I'm comfortable with accepting it as being true. I'm also
> willing to acknowledge that we don't know all the answers and that what
> currently passes for science may be proven wrong someday.
Mostly agree: I accept that if the best knowledge we have is in support of a
theory then it is a good theory to base public policy on (or policies for an
OS... or whatever). Does this mean that new information will not point to
better ways in the future? Of course not... but all we can do is use the
best info we have. We cannot use better info than the info we have...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> That is generally the case but you do have instances where new discoveries
>>> alter previously held majority views - sometimes in a complete reversal.
>>
>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>>
>> I don't think that science or one's beliefs need to be "static." What I
>> mean by this is that I don't necessarily question all science because of the
>> possibility that one day it might be proven wrong. As long as the 'science'
>> we have today is based on the best knowledge and evidence that we have
>> available then I'm comfortable with accepting it as being true. I'm also
>> willing to acknowledge that we don't know all the answers and that what
>> currently passes for science may be proven wrong someday.
>
> Hence, a bit of interpretation leading to a judgement is in order.
Not against that in principle... do you have a real world example?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
d0cdaf40-7b74-4090...@w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com on 2/11/10
9:29 AM:
> On Feb 10, 5:13�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
>> supports? �This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. �Curious as to
>> the different views.
>>
>
> UI is hardly a science yet.
There is a lot of science behind UI design though. Just as there is a lot
of science behind making buildings... this does not mean all building should
look and act exactly the same. To the contrary, that would be silly.
> There are no hard and fast rules yet.
Well, there are some very, very well established features that have been
repeatedly observed to benefit both new and experienced users, both techies
and non-techies. Some of these things are: consistency across a system (in
terms of icons, menus, terms, etc.), focus on tasks and not features, color
usage, localization, feedback, whitespace and other visual elements, error
tolerance, direct manipulation, etc.
Now just listing those is not adequate to giving full explanations - there
are times when, for example, it makes sense to show context changes with
inconsistencies or, by necessity, it makes sense to have inconsistencies as
you migrate to new paradigms or even try new paradigms out.
> And it will never be a science like real science.
How do you defined "real science"? Seems hard to do so and exclude UI
science with its controlled double-blind experiments and the like.
> It will be a science like marketing is a science (if you want to call it
> that). Science has indisputable rules.
I think you are thinking of the "hard sciences".
> A good UI is just whatever pleases most of the people, but not all.
Where did you come up with that?
> You can never get everyone. Right now you can find conflicting papers
> regarding pretty much all aspects of UI. You can throw together studies to
> prove just about anything for it.
Do you have examples of, say, where the idea of general consistency is
attempted to be refuted? How about the concept of color usage? Error
tolerance?
Not saying that there are not different ways people might go about these or
that there are not questions, but the general principles are *very* well
accepted. Note how much agreement there is in the HIGs of Apple, MS, KDE,
Gnome, OLPC, etc.
> Right now the only thing everyone agrees on is that the UI is important.
Much more is agreed upon by those in the field... at least with a great deal
of acceptance. I cannot find any contrary views where there is any support.
> Grouping global warming together with "UI science" doesn't make sense. "UI
> science" should be grouped with "Superbowl Commercial Science."
While there is a lot of science behind advertising, there is also a lot of
value to originality. That makes it a significantly more complex area of
study.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/11/10 9:05 AM:
The more we learn, the more questions we will have.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/11/10 9:11 AM:
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything revolved
>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>
> By new science.
>
> Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
>
>> I don't think that science or one's beliefs need to be "static." What I
>> mean by this is that I don't necessarily question all science because of the
>> possibility that one day it might be proven wrong. As long as the 'science'
>> we have today is based on the best knowledge and evidence that we have
>> available then I'm comfortable with accepting it as being true. I'm also
>> willing to acknowledge that we don't know all the answers and that what
>> currently passes for science may be proven wrong someday.
>
> Unfortunately, many people do not have your understanding of the word
> "theory".
Well, in science, a theory is very well accepted... consider the theory of
gravity or the theory of evolution or germ theory. All have minimal numbers
of people who dissent, but each is very, very well supported.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:31 AM:
>
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:E8ydnVBtYfaTsOnW...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 11/02/2010 16:11, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> The classic example is when "science" once believed that everything
>>>> revolved
>>>> around the earth. Eventually new discoveries and new thinking proved
>>>> otherwise and the earlier science was proven to be wrong.
>>>
>>> By new science.
>>>
>>> Over the strenuous objection of the Church.
>>
>> The other classic example is when cigarettes were found in fact to be
>> harmful. Even though most scientists knew within a short space of time, it
>> took a long time for that to become publicly accepted due to obvious
>> entrenched business interests. There will always be partisan people who
>> won't accept new science due to monetary/religious/dumbfuckery issues.
>
> In a perfect world it would be nice if scientists were impartial and could
> conduct their research and science without any commercial or political
> influence. But in many cases science is a business and these labs need
> funding in order to continue and that will almost certainly have an
> influence on their findings.
Correct. Look at EMF health studies. Those done by the industries who have
reason to not want there to be a health problem show 75% that there is no
problem. Those done by independent groups show 75% that there is a problem.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud stated in post LcWdndAjtcdTo-7W...@bresnan.com on
> 2/10/10 4:18 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Ezekiel stated in post hkvbtu$vm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10
>>> 3:28 PM:
>>>
>>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:C7987D99.63FC7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>>
>>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
>>>>> to
>>>>> the different views.
>>>>
>>>> Science - No.
>>>> Junk science - Yes.
>>> Seems you can just say anything you disagree with is "junk science".
>>>
>>>
>> measurements. Also it should be repeatable.
>
> Correct. And, when appropriate multiple avenues should lead to similar
> conclusions.
>
>> Junk science seems to me, anyway, to be based out of social engineering
>> designed to trigger emotional responses that aren't based in hard
>> science. I suppose it could be better defined that what I have wrote.
>
> But I think I get it: it has an end-goal in mind other than finding a better
> model / modifying a clearly related existing situation.
>
Not sure I follow that.
An end-goal = "the ends justify the means"?
>> The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
>> form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
>> is supposed to make it easier to remember and use.
>
> There is a lot of science to UI design... which is not to say there is not
> also art. This is true of many things, even architecture: a good building
> is designed based on many scientific principles, but also could be very much
> a piece of art. Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow
> the science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it
> cools?
>
True enough. UI design... I have a simple question: will a person in
Asia perceive the stop symbol the same as one in the US as to what it
means in the UI?
Snit
2/11/10 12:23 PM:
Right: such behavior is not a part of good scientific inquiry (though the
questions can be lead by looking for means, the answers should not be).
>
>>> The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
>>> form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
>>> is supposed to make it easier to remember and use.
>>
>> There is a lot of science to UI design... which is not to say there is not
>> also art. This is true of many things, even architecture: a good building
>> is designed based on many scientific principles, but also could be very much
>> a piece of art. Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow
>> the science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it
>> cools?
>>
>
> True enough. UI design... I have a simple question: will a person in
> Asia perceive the stop symbol the same as one in the US as to what it
> means in the UI?
Well, at least in China, Japan and Korea they also (at least often) use red
octagons, so there is some commonality... but it there are times when it
would make sense to have localization change not just terminology but also
icons.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:09:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> TomB stated in post 201002110...@usenet.drumscum.be on 2/11/10 1:46
>> AM:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-11, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> ronb stated in post hl056s$gji$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/10/10 10:39
>>>> PM:
>>>>> More C02 is released from oceans when the atmosphere is hotter. More C02
>>>>> in the air is not a driver of global warming, it's the result of it. The
>>>>> driver is the sun and whether its sunspots are active or not. The global
>>>>> warming bullshitters have it exactly backwards.
>>>> Where do you get this idea from? Are you just making things up?
>>> No, he isn't making things up. It's a solid theory. I'll try dig up
>>> some links later on (or you can try find more info yourself of
>>> course).
>> I suspect you will be able to find some info on the sun's affect on the
>> temperature... but nothing that says it explains the full changes we are
>> seeing. Also, you are unlikely to find anything that says the current heat
>> changes are what have causes the CO2 levels to be higher than they have been
>> in 20 million years or so (been a while since that was determined, so maybe
>> 20 million and one by now). :)
>
> I've stayed out of this Global Warming thingie mostly because I
> admit I know very little about it, however consider these points:
>
> 1. Climate changes, drastic climate changes, have been a part of
> our history. See ice age and even more so little ice age for
> examples. Greenhouse gases weren't a big part of any of them
> unless you consider cattle farting....
>
> 2. People like Al Gore etc are making fortunes off of this crap
> yet are the biggest hypocrites in the pile. Wonder if Al runs
> Linux?
> He would fit right in with his corporate jet, fancy polluting
> SUV's and his home use of electric power.
>
> 3. Global warming doesn't necessarily mean things get hotter for
> everyone. It really should be renamed to something like "climate
> alteration etc". The people who are seeing extreme snow in
> Maryland USA certainly are having a difficult time thinking global
> warming.
>
> 4. I have no doubt that our polluting ways, see China for current
> details, are wreaking havoc. Looking at satellite photos of the
> arctic melting is pretty much proof that things are changing.
> However, are they really changing mainly due to man's ignorance or
> are these cycles that have been going on for billions of years?
>
I still question when those sat photos were taken... in the summer or in
the winter?
> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
> why my answer is I dunno....
Well, we can also look into astrophysics to explain some of these, like
the Maundern effect, where our planets orbit changes from circular to
elliptical on a long term cyclical basis. Of course how long earth
stays in a circular orbit vs elliptical orbit may explain the long time
an ice-age lasts. From what I've heard from a climatologist is that it
only takes a lowering of world wide temps of only 3 to 5 degrees F.
But on the whole I agree with your assessments. I just don't want to
have to pay taxes on a maybe.
Snit
2/11/10 1:08 PM:
>> 4. I have no doubt that our polluting ways, see China for current
>> details, are wreaking havoc. Looking at satellite photos of the
>> arctic melting is pretty much proof that things are changing.
>> However, are they really changing mainly due to man's ignorance or
>> are these cycles that have been going on for billions of years?
>>
>
> I still question when those sat photos were taken... in the summer or in
> the winter?
>
>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>> why my answer is I dunno....
>
> Well, we can also look into astrophysics to explain some of these, like
> the Maundern effect, where our planets orbit changes from circular to
> elliptical on a long term cyclical basis. Of course how long earth
> stays in a circular orbit vs elliptical orbit may explain the long time
> an ice-age lasts. From what I've heard from a climatologist is that it
> only takes a lowering of world wide temps of only 3 to 5 degrees F.
>
> But on the whole I agree with your assessments. I just don't want to
> have to pay taxes on a maybe.
You cannot do better than to base public policy on the best known data...
even though most data is a "maybe" at some level.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
> M0she_ stated in post ibefmei8rod4$.1g94rtlt...@40tude.net on 2/11/10
> 2:19 AM:
>
>> 2. People like Al Gore etc are making fortunes off of this crap
>> yet are the biggest hypocrites in the pile. Wonder if Al runs
>> Linux?
>> He would fit right in with his corporate jet, fancy polluting
>> SUV's and his home use of electric power.
>
> agree with his choices... or know them.
>
>> 3. Global warming doesn't necessarily mean things get hotter for
>> everyone. It really should be renamed to something like "climate
>> alteration etc". The people who are seeing extreme snow in
>> Maryland USA certainly are having a difficult time thinking global
>> warming.
>
> global warming. The models support the idea of some areas getting cooler.
> With that said, one cold winter in one area, or even several areas, does not
> go against the theory (theories).
>
>> 4. I have no doubt that our polluting ways, see China for current
>> details, are wreaking havoc. Looking at satellite photos of the
>> arctic melting is pretty much proof that things are changing.
>> However, are they really changing mainly due to man's ignorance or
>> are these cycles that have been going on for billions of years?
>
> changes are happening largely from man-made activity. This is not really in
> question by anyone who knows the data well.
>
All I've seen is tampered data and data that was taken from very hot
spots like tarmacs and behind air conditioners on roof tops.
Also this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) � Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by
human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about
45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>> why my answer is I dunno....
>
> Well, nobody has done a double-blind study to test the last one... we have
> only one planet and doing random studies with it is a bit of a challenge.
> :) But it is about as clear as it can be that the changes are largely not
> natural.
>
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Wobbly Mars
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's
Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the
attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output.
Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth�s current global
warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National
Geographic News.
�Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
increase in solar irradiance,� Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
interview last week. �The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
GreyCloud
Overall, looking at UI designs come right out of the computer science
depts... I'd have to say it is a science in this sense.
Snit
2/11/10 1:18 PM:
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) � Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by
> human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
> absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about
> 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
Is anyone saying none of it is absorbed? There is debate as to how much is
absorbed by the ocean vs. the land, and I am sure more... but I think pretty
much everyone accepts much is absorbed. That does not change the fact about
how much is in the atmosphere:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
-----
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36%
and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much
higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the
period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2
values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years
ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of
the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20
years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change,
particularly deforestation.
-----
>>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>>> why my answer is I dunno....
>>
>> Well, nobody has done a double-blind study to test the last one... we have
>> only one planet and doing random studies with it is a bit of a challenge.
>> :) But it is about as clear as it can be that the changes are largely not
>> natural.
>>
>
> http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
>
> Wobbly Mars
>
> Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's
> Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the
> attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output.
> Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth�s current global
> warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National
> Geographic News.
>
> �Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
> increase in solar irradiance,� Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
> interview last week. �The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
So much for the idea that contrary ideas are suppressed. And he is not the
only one:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_sci
entific_assessment_of_global_warming>
But the vast, vast majority do have similar views. I am happy there are
those who believe differently... that is how science works best.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
> absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only
> about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
>
>>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>>> why my answer is I dunno....
>>
>> Well, nobody has done a double-blind study to test the last one...
>> we have only one planet and doing random studies with it is a bit
>> of a challenge. :) But it is about as clear as it can be that the
>> changes are largely not natural.
>>
>
> http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
>
> Wobbly Mars
>
> Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St.
> Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently
> linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the
> sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for
> published online by National Geographic News.
>
> the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with
> an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling
> on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
Guess I don't have to dig up those links anymore :-)
--
Nothing is more reliable than a man whose loyalties can be bought with
hard cash.
~ Boris Balkan
Snit
2/11/10 1:20 PM:
And there are different models, for example, I have been looking into both
the MIT "Right Thing" approach and the "Worse is Better" approach. Both have
different views on just how important consistency is. One says UIs *must be
consistent* and the other says they must not be overly inconsistent and
defines places where inconsistencies make sense.
This might surprise COLA folks, but I lean toward the "Worse is Better"
camp. Here is a link with a little about each:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_Better>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
RonB
> “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
> increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
> interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
And Mar's atmosphere is about 95% C02 -- shouldn't the planet be
sweltering about now?
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
Snit
PM:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:18:20 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> �Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
>> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
>> increase in solar irradiance,� Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
>> interview last week. �The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
>> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
>
> And Mar's atmosphere is about 95% C02 -- shouldn't the planet be
> sweltering about now?
Why?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Phil Da Lick!
> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
> NaOdnT5AMt2WuOnW...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 8:41 AM:
>
>> On 11/02/2010 15:04, Snit wrote:
>>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>>> Iaydney7lJi_U-7W...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 2:30 AM:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found and
>>>>> supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc. Curious as
>>>>> to
>>>>> the different views.
>>>>
>>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them in an
>>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up thanks.
>>> Science is not about providing all the answers... it is about building
>>> models and testing them, looking at data, etc.
>>>
>>> But, sure, you should make up your own mind. If not based on the science /
>>> best known data, though, what do you base it on?
>> Who said anything about not basing your own conclusions on the available
>> science?
>
> You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It never
> will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature of
> science.
And your original question regarded when people consider it right to
stop challenging science.
>> There's a world of difference between that and blindly
>> believing that science is universally watertight.
>
> This is a much softer view than your previously stated one, but fine, I can
> go with your new view (as in accepting it as yours, not saying I fully
> agree). Who do you think thinks science is "universally watertight"?
There are plenty of people who love to jump on scientific bandwagons.
We're seeing it now with the climate change debate - on both sides of
the argument.
Phil Da Lick!
That's not what I said.
> but science is not about having "all the answers". You show
> you are not one who believes in science.
"Believe in science" - wtf does that mean? Science is a tool - not a
religion. And it is ever evolving. And it will *never* reach a point
where I will blindly accept the scientific "norm" (if ever there is such
a thing) without examining the evidence for myself and forming an
opinion. And you can choose any subject you like - you will find
scientific basis to support both sides of an argument. That's in the
nature of science.
Snit
You did say: "How's about until science has all the answers and ... "
I accept if you want to say you did not word that well, but you did say it.
>> but science is not about having "all the answers". You show
>> you are not one who believes in science.
>
> "Believe in science" - wtf does that mean? Science is a tool - not a
> religion.
Believe in conclusions found by science. And that is fine - I do not
blindly believe all things I hear from science either.
> And it is ever evolving. And it will *never* reach a point
> where I will blindly accept the scientific "norm" (if ever there is such
> a thing) without examining the evidence for myself and forming an
> opinion. And you can choose any subject you like - you will find
> scientific basis to support both sides of an argument. That's in the
> nature of science.
Who said anything about blindly accepting?
>> That is fine - the question then
>> becomes where do you get your views?
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>> NaOdnT5AMt2WuOnW...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 8:41 AM:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2010 15:04, Snit wrote:
>>>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>>>> Iaydney7lJi_U-7W...@brightview.co.uk on 2/11/10 2:30 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has found
>>>>>> and supports? This can apply to global warming, UI science, etc.
>>>>>> Curious as to the different views.
>>>>>
>>>>> How's about until science has all the answers and can present them in an
>>>>> unbiased, unpartisan fashion? Until then, I'll make my own mind up thanks.
>>>> Science is not about providing all the answers... it is about building
>>>> models and testing them, looking at data, etc.
>>>>
>>>> But, sure, you should make up your own mind. If not based on the science /
>>>> best known data, though, what do you base it on?
>>> Who said anything about not basing your own conclusions on the available
>>> science?
>>
>> You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It never
>> will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature of
>> science.
>
> And your original question regarded when people consider it right to
> stop challenging science.
Stop challenging? I said no such thing. I think it makes sense to go
against what science has found if I have contrary info. Of course, if I do
I should be able to share that info and discuss it.
>>> There's a world of difference between that and blindly
>>> believing that science is universally watertight.
>>
>> This is a much softer view than your previously stated one, but fine, I can
>> go with your new view (as in accepting it as yours, not saying I fully
>> agree). Who do you think thinks science is "universally watertight"?
>
> There are plenty of people who love to jump on scientific bandwagons.
> We're seeing it now with the climate change debate - on both sides of
> the argument.
Well, sure, most people have little knowledge of the topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Phil Da Lick!
In response to:
"When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has
found" - an incredibly vague statement that seems to suggest that
science is king. It is not. Not by a long way.
Phil Da Lick!
And where do you get that contrary info? At the moment we have a very
shrill and zealotous push for acceptance of climate change as man made
by the green brigade, and some politicos who are dishonestly using it as
a tax hammer. Any voice to the contrary is "loony" and in "denial". No
reasoned debate is taking place - the pro-climate change lobby will not
allow it. It's kind of difficult to have a reasoned argument with this
kind of behaviour going on. And although the scientific majority does
say that climate change is happening there is still not an across the
board rock solid proof that industrialisation is wholly responsible.
Snit
...
>>>> You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It never
>>>> will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature
>>>> of science.
>>>>
>>> And your original question regarded when people consider it right to stop
>>> challenging science.
>>>
>> Stop challenging? I said no such thing. I think it makes sense to go
>> against what science has found if I have contrary info. Of course, if I do
>
> And where do you get that contrary info?
Same places you get the supporting info - heck, I have even posted a list of
scientists who disagree. The list is fairly small, but large enough to
shoot down the idea that people who disagree are shunned by the scientific
community to the point where they cannot publish their ideas.
> At the moment we have a very shrill and zealotous push for acceptance of
> climate change as man made by the green brigade, and some politicos who are
> dishonestly using it as a tax hammer. Any voice to the contrary is "loony" and
> in "denial".
So you feel you cannot show evidence because you fear how people will react?
> No reasoned debate is taking place - the pro-climate change lobby will not
> allow it. It's kind of difficult to have a reasoned argument with this kind of
> behaviour going on. And although the scientific majority does say that climate
> change is happening there is still not an across the board rock solid proof
> that industrialisation is wholly responsible.
The only way to get such "proof" is to do controlled studies on multiple
planets... where you can control other conditions. Even then it would merely
be very, very strong support. So, sure, the evidence is not as strong as it
could be in other sciences.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>>> You require science to "have all the answers" before you will support its
>>>> conclusions...
>>>
>>> That's not what I said.
>>
>> You did say: "How's about until science has all the answers and ... "
>>
>> I accept if you want to say you did not word that well, but you did say it.
>
> In response to:
> "When do you believe it makes sense to go against what science has
> found" - an incredibly vague statement that seems to suggest that
> science is king. It is not. Not by a long way.
In no way, shape, or form have I suggested science is "king". I asked
people would go against it... and have even noted how there are times when I
think it is reasonable for one to do so.
But, in general, the testable, repeatable evidence that science finds is
pretty darn convincing. In my view, anyway.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Phil Da Lick!
> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
> jsudnWEiurElhujW...@brightview.co.uk on 2/12/10 2:13 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It never
>>>>> will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature
>>>>> of science.
>>>>>
>>>> And your original question regarded when people consider it right to stop
>>>> challenging science.
>>>>
>>> Stop challenging? I said no such thing. I think it makes sense to go
>>> against what science has found if I have contrary info. Of course, if I do
>>
>> And where do you get that contrary info?
>
> Same places you get the supporting info - heck, I have even posted a list of
> scientists who disagree. The list is fairly small, but large enough to
> shoot down the idea that people who disagree are shunned by the scientific
> community to the point where they cannot publish their ideas.
>
>> At the moment we have a very shrill and zealotous push for acceptance of
>> climate change as man made by the green brigade, and some politicos who are
>> dishonestly using it as a tax hammer. Any voice to the contrary is "loony" and
>> in "denial".
>
> So you feel you cannot show evidence because you fear how people will react?
Huh? Why should I show evidence? I'm not a climatologist.
>> No reasoned debate is taking place - the pro-climate change lobby will not
>> allow it. It's kind of difficult to have a reasoned argument with this kind of
>> behaviour going on. And although the scientific majority does say that climate
>> change is happening there is still not an across the board rock solid proof
>> that industrialisation is wholly responsible.
>
> The only way to get such "proof" is to do controlled studies on multiple
> planets... where you can control other conditions. Even then it would merely
> be very, very strong support. So, sure, the evidence is not as strong as it
> could be in other sciences.
> ...
Research on other planets would be moot because they're, well, other
planets. And long term research on earth is probably moot as well
because the data going back shows a very long changing climate. Fact is,
it's impossible to predict accurately.
Snit
> On 12/02/2010 15:37, Snit wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! stated in post
>> jsudnWEiurElhujW...@brightview.co.uk on 2/12/10 2:13 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> You said you were waiting for science to have "all the answers". It
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> will... in fact, it now has more questions then ever. That is the nature
>>>>>> of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And your original question regarded when people consider it right to stop
>>>>> challenging science.
>>>>>
>>>> Stop challenging? I said no such thing. I think it makes sense to go
>>>> against what science has found if I have contrary info. Of course, if I do
>>>>
>>> And where do you get that contrary info?
>>>
>> Same places you get the supporting info - heck, I have even posted a list of
>> scientists who disagree. The list is fairly small, but large enough to shoot
>> down the idea that people who disagree are shunned by the scientific
>> community to the point where they cannot publish their ideas.
>>
>>> At the moment we have a very shrill and zealotous push for acceptance of
>>> climate change as man made by the green brigade, and some politicos who are
>>> dishonestly using it as a tax hammer. Any voice to the contrary is "loony"
>>> and in "denial".
>>>
>> So you feel you cannot show evidence because you fear how people will react?
>>
> Huh? Why should I show evidence? I'm not a climatologist.
I do not think one has to be a climatologist to have an educated opinion...
though, of course, one can hope climatologists would have an even better
education.
>>> No reasoned debate is taking place - the pro-climate change lobby will not
>>> allow it. It's kind of difficult to have a reasoned argument with this kind
>>> of
>>> behaviour going on. And although the scientific majority does say that
>>> climate
>>> change is happening there is still not an across the board rock solid proof
>>> that industrialisation is wholly responsible.
>>
>> The only way to get such "proof" is to do controlled studies on multiple
>> planets... where you can control other conditions. Even then it would merely
>> be very, very strong support. So, sure, the evidence is not as strong as it
>> could be in other sciences.
>> ...
>
>
> Research on other planets would be moot because they're, well, other
> planets.
Right: you would need to control for all other variables. We would need
multiple Earths. At least the construction industry would reach full
employment.
> And long term research on earth is probably moot as well because the data
> going back shows a very long changing climate. Fact is, it's impossible to
> predict accurately.
Well, many of the models have made predictions which have shown to be fairly
accurate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
seems to put it into a science rather than an art.
GreyCloud
>> human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
>> absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about
>> 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
>
> Is anyone saying none of it is absorbed? There is debate as to how much is
> absorbed by the ocean vs. the land, and I am sure more... but I think pretty
> much everyone accepts much is absorbed. That does not change the fact about
> how much is in the atmosphere:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
> -----
> The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36%
> and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much
> higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the
> period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
> cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2
> values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years
> ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of
> the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20
> years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change,
> particularly deforestation.
> -----
What they don't show is the ratio of naturally emitted CO2 to human
caused CO2 and then the actual percentage of CO2 to the other gases in
our atmosphere.
From what I could gather, it is less than 1%.
>
>>>> I don't think anyone has the answer to the last question which is
>>>> why my answer is I dunno....
>>> Well, nobody has done a double-blind study to test the last one... we have
>>> only one planet and doing random studies with it is a bit of a challenge.
>>> :) But it is about as clear as it can be that the changes are largely not
>>> natural.
>>>
>> http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
>>
>> Wobbly Mars
>>
>> Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's
>> Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the
>> attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output.
>> Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth�s current global
>> warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National
>> Geographic News.
>>
>> �Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
>> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
>> increase in solar irradiance,� Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
>> interview last week. �The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
>> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
>
> So much for the idea that contrary ideas are suppressed. And he is not the
> only one:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_sci
> entific_assessment_of_global_warming>
>
> But the vast, vast majority do have similar views. I am happy there are
> those who believe differently... that is how science works best.
>
That is true. However, the leaked emails shows that peer reviews that
were against their agenda were either tossed or silenced. That isn't
scientific or acceptable behaviour on their part at the IPPC.
GreyCloud
our sun and how it affects earth. Also, the sun isn't the only source
of energy out there. I'm sure they are also unaware of what different
types of energies are there and how it affects us or what the effects
are from vast electric fields have on our climate. There is some
research now going on trying to figure if the suns 500kv electric field
has on the earth vs the galaxies 1.3trillion ev field has. One fellow
is now working on a theory of the electric field distribution from the
core of the galaxy and how it forms the milky way distributions of the
stars in relation to the core. He is saying that gravity isn't a strong
enough force to worry about, but that the electric field is quite a bit
stronger by several magnitudes. The basis for the electric universe and
how it works. Deep stuff to ponder, but maybe they'll find something.
Snit
2/12/10 12:40 PM:
>>>>> The question is: is UI a science, socially acceptable norms, or an art
>>>>> form? It could be a science in that consistency throughout all programs
>>>>> is supposed to make it easier to remember and use. There is a lot of
>>>>> science to UI design... which is not to say there is not also art. This
>>>>> is true of many things, even architecture: a good building is designed
>>>>> based on many scientific principles, but also could be very much a piece
>>>>> of art. Heck, how good would a glass-blower be if he did not follow the
>>>>> science of what colors what and how to make glass not shatter as it cools?
>>>>
>>> True enough. UI design... I have a simple question: will a person in
>>> Asia perceive the stop symbol the same as one in the US as to what it
>>> means in the UI?
>>
>> Well, at least in China, Japan and Korea they also (at least often) use red
>> octagons, so there is some commonality... but it there are times when it
>> would make sense to have localization change not just terminology but also
>> icons.
>>
> Then the UI design for locales would have to be researched and that
> seems to put it into a science rather than an art.
For the most part I agree, though an artist designing, say, a painting for a
different culture might also look into the meanings of local colors, shapes
and symbols. Of course, I think there is some science to much art, too. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
causing a greenhouse effect. Myself, I don't believe that the
concentrations are significant enough to cause this.
Of course, I have read differing accounts of the percentages of CO2 on mars.
GreyCloud
has tossed that out as bogus and tampered with.
Snit
2/12/10 12:43 PM:
>>> ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) ‹ Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by
>>> human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
>>> absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about
>>> 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
>>
>> Is anyone saying none of it is absorbed? There is debate as to how much is
>> absorbed by the ocean vs. the land, and I am sure more... but I think pretty
>> much everyone accepts much is absorbed. That does not change the fact about
>> how much is in the atmosphere:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
>> -----
>> The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36%
>> and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much
>> higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the
>> period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
>> cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2
>> values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years
>> ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of
>> the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20
>> years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change,
>> particularly deforestation.
>> -----
>
> What they don't show is the ratio of naturally emitted CO2 to human
> caused CO2 and then the actual percentage of CO2 to the other gases in
> our atmosphere.
> From what I could gather, it is less than 1%.
The human causes sources are significantly less than the natural - less than
1% would nor surprise me. That does not mean that the levels are not having
an serious affect - as noted, above. I think this is hard for a lot of
people to understand - how could such a small increase lead to such a big
change. It is sort of like interest: how can such small interest payments
lead to me having to pay so much! Math just works that way. :)
...
>>> ³Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
>>> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
>>> increase in solar irradiance,² Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
>>> interview last week. ³The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
>>> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
>>
>> So much for the idea that contrary ideas are suppressed. And he is not the
>> only one:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_sci
>> entific_assessment_of_global_warming>
>>
>> But the vast, vast majority do have similar views. I am happy there are
>> those who believe differently... that is how science works best.
>
> That is true. However, the leaked emails shows that peer reviews that
> were against their agenda were either tossed or silenced. That isn't
> scientific or acceptable behaviour on their part at the IPPC.
Absolutely agree.
I think we disagree on many aspects of this, but I do not in any way excuse
the poor behavior of the IPPC scientists. Yes, I understand they are under
attack and under pressure - that does not justify their actions.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/12/10 12:51 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> RonB stated in post hl207p$3nh$4...@news.eternal-september.org on 2/11/10 3:27
>> PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:18:20 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> �Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the
>>>> warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the
>>>> increase in solar irradiance,� Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email
>>>> interview last week. �The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth
>>>> and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
>>> And Mar's atmosphere is about 95% C02 -- shouldn't the planet be
>>> sweltering about now?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
> I think that he is referring to the IPPCs fact that CO2 traps heat,
> causing a greenhouse effect.
Sure... that is his logical fallacy - thinking that CO2 on another planet
would make that planet hotter than Earth, even with *very* different
conditions.
> Myself, I don't believe that the
> concentrations are significant enough to cause this.
> Of course, I have read differing accounts of the percentages of CO2 on mars.
Not that we cannot learn from other atmospheres, we can - but to think that
the temperature of a planet can be determined by any single variable is just
silly. This is not to say that a single variable cannot have an affect!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]